Text Size

Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

Trying to sell a historic health bill to a balky caucus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told POLITICO in an interview that she wants to soften a proposed surcharge on the wealthy so that it applies only to families that make $1 million or more.

The change could help mollify the conservative Democrats who expect to have a tough time selling the package back home. Their support is the single biggest key to meeting the speaker’s goal of having health care reform pass the House by the August recess.

The bill now moving through the House would raise taxes for individuals with annual adjusted gross incomes of $280,000, or families that make $350,000 or more.

“I’d like it to go higher than it is,” Pelosi said Friday.

The speaker would like the trigger raised to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families, “so it’s a millionaire’s tax,” she said. “When someone hears, ‘2,’ they think, ‘Oh, I could be there,’ because they don’t know the $280,000 is for one person.

“It sounds like you’re in the neighborhood. So I just want to remove all doubt. You hear ‘$500,000 a year,’ you think, ‘My God, that’s not me.’”

Pelosi also told POLITICO she will push to “drain” more savings from the medical industry — hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and health insurers — than they have given up under current health-reform agreements with the Senate and White House.

Asked whether she believes the industry players will wind up contributing more to the package, Pelosi replied: “I don’t know. I know they can, to the extent that the special interests are willing to cooperate. ... They could do much better. ... Frankly, I think all the money [to pay for health reform] could be drained from the system, if they were willing to do that.”

The speaker said she will try to wring more concessions, setting up a potential battle with health care players who torpedoed President Bill Clinton’s health-reform efforts but have been eager participants in the negotiations this time around.

Pelosi said she is open to other changes — that she is taking an “agnostic” approach to getting a bill, rather than working from a “theology” of reform: “You have to just judge it for: Does it lower costs, improve quality?”

Pelosi now faces more pressure than she ever has in her career — obligated to repeatedly deliver tough votes for an ambitious and popular president, but anxious to minimize the midterm election losses that traditionally befall the party holding the White House.

The speaker professed bemusement at the persistent question she gets about whether it was better to be speaker with a Republican president or a Democratic president.

“Oh, please!” she replied. “Why do people ask that question? Do you have any idea? Like night and day. When people ask it, I think: Would you think that it would be easier to have a Republican president who doesn’t share your values? No, no, no.

“Nothing is easy. It’s challenging to get the job done and live up to the expectations and the hopes of the American people, as the president has taken them all to a new height. ... But ... it’s like having a 1,000-ton anvil lifted off your shoulders.

“People would ask, ‘Now, you’re not going to be the No. 1.’ And I say, ‘This is what I’ve hoped, prayed, dreamed and worked for.’ And it absolutely goes beyond my expectations of what it could be.”

That's her answer to everything... what happens when we run out of millionairs? Sign the petition for the resignation or impeachment of Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid at SHADOWFAXREPORT.com. They have broken their oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. If they do not resign they should be impeached for treasonous acts.

YES! AIG, Goldman Sachs and the gang have gone right back to what they did before. And what they did before tanked the economy.

These wealthy bankers have a kind of defacto insurance--the government will bail them out when they screw up and despite the fact that they were given (and are still being given) millions in bonuses. Why shouldn't they help pay for health insurance for all the people they destroyed when they destroyed the economy?

The wealthy and their GOP front men and women (mostly men) want it both ways--TARP bailouts which lead to huge bonuses and ever lower taxes for the wealthy but not the middle class. It is time for that to stop.

The people that complain about this are the radio and television people that are in the top 1-5% anyway.

The next time you're in a room with about a hundred people, look around. Then realize that all the out cry is for five of the people among the crowd. How it wouldn't be fair for THEM and that the rest of the whole group should feel sorry for them.

You cannot tax one group of people for the selective benefit of another. That is congress passing judgement, which is explicitly forbidden by bill of attainder.

That doesn't mean it won't happen though... This administration and congress is proving to be even more rapacious in their disregard for the constitution than the last group of grievous violators under Bush and the "republicans."

Health Care Bill Will Increase Deficit By $239 Billion Over The Next 10 Years

- Will Increase Taxes And Small Business Fees $583 Billion

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has revealed that the health care bill will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. The projected shortfall means Democrats will need to find additional revenue or make deeper cuts to existing programs in order to meet their goal of paying for the $1 trillion bill... The plan would (also) leave 17 million people within the U.S. uninsured... Many Democrats are pushing their leaders to find additional savings and scale back some of the $583 billion in new tax revenue and small business fees the authors plan to raise over the next 10 years." - Politico | PATRICK O'CONNOR | 7/18/09 12:39 AM EDT

Short On Economic Understanding, McCain Brings Phil Gramm to Meeting First Posted:

01-21-08 04:12 PM | Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM

At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he "doesn't really understand economics" and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm - whom he had brought with him to the meeting - as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned. The incident was confirmed by a source familiar with the proceedings of the meeting. On the campaign trail, McCain has often made light of his lack of economic policy understanding. But his concern over such a shortcoming may be even greater then he has suggested. This is not the first time McCain has turned to Gramm as a buffer for criticism of his economic views - or lack thereof. Gramm, who regards himself as a budget-balancing, anti-government spending Republican, was brought on board a sputtering McCain campaign last summer. Since then, McCain has staged a political recovery and is now a serious contender for the GOP nomination. After joining the campaign, Gramm has remained by the candidate's side to "vouch for Mr. McCain's fiscal and security bona fides," according to the Dallas Morning News. Even prior to McCain's flop, Gramm was advocating on his behalf, writing a flattering February 2007 oped in the Wall Street Journal on his behalf.

During his 18 years in the Senate, Gramm helped spearhead the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed commercial and investment banks -- like Citigroup-- to more easily merge. The Texas Republican ran for president in 1996, but dropped out prior to the New Hampshire primary, despite at one point having $25 million in the campaign coffers. McCain and Gramm are two long-time colleagues, and Gramm shores up a political weak-spot that McCain readily acknowledges exists. In recent campaign stops the Arizona Republican touted his desire for a new round of tax cuts, as well as encouraging investment and economic stimulus by ending the alternative-minimum tax. But he also admitted that, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Adding, "I've got [former Fed Chairman Alan] Greenspan's book." Even as far back as 2005, McCain was admitting that he lacked depth in economic policy. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Stephen Moore offered a probing and at times blunt assessment of McCain's economic policies. "[He] readily departs from Reaganomics," Moore wrote. "His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tells me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

And to whom did McCain tell Moore he turns to for advise? "His foremost economic guru," wrote the columnist, "is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration)." McCain's office did not return multiple requests for comment. The Wall Street Journal, as a company policy, does not comment on meetings that take place privately with their editorial board. "People around the table were sort of taken back," said the source . "They thought McCain would have better answers."

So most of us who don't have short memories actually do recall what the alternative was back in November - and putting the economy under the direction of the man largely responsible for our current catastrophe was certainly not an option. We should all be glad when we remember that no matter how bad things might get, they would have been so much worse under McCain/Palin.

Pelosi is as big a lyer as Obama. They are cut from the same cloth. I do not believe anything she says, does, or implies. These people will say anything in order to get this monstrosity passed. What a cut for the American people to have these thieves and liars negotiating on our behalf.

Obama and all politicians that try to force socialized medicine down our throats should not be allowed to get away with one set of rules for them and another for the general public:

I don’t think we should leave him any choice.

We should create a legal requirement that political elites have to use the same system they foist on everyone else. They should have to wait for hours in doctors offices. They should have to wait weeks or months for test. They should be fobbed off on emergency rooms if they get sick over the weekend. They should be denied any hail-mary test , medications and procedures. They should get the entire politically-managed health care experience.

This standard should extend to all elected officials, political appointees and their immediate family.

The wealthy and their GOP front men and women (mostly men) want it both ways--TARP bailouts which lead to huge bonuses and ever lower taxes for the wealthy but not the middle class. It is time for that to stop.

The world is not made up of pin-holed groups of people. Focus on your words and learn.

"The wealthy", "GOP front men & women (mostly men)"

I am not sure who's wealthy. If I live in Kenya in a hut, wealthy is $50/mo and a goat. In Manhatten, it ain't. Trying to pigeon-hole the society will bring you nothing but animosity.

GOP front men and women? So if I'm a Democrat front man, you're okay with that?

Apart from that, some history would help you understand. Raise the taxes on the rich (whoever that is) and they will figure out a way to get around it. If you are the government, now what do you do? Tax the ones who can't...

Anyone who tells you that the federal government can be used for social engineering... is a

hum... suffice it to say that their names might be... Hugo, Fidel, Omar, Mao and fill in the blanks.

Raising the limit - hmmm, me thinks Nancy just figured out the folks that pay for her and other politicians $1000 a plate fund raisers and such... Wouldn't want to get those rich low lifes making between 250 and 500K angry, not with mid terms coming up.

Well here's a new play for the liberals; Tax the daylights out of rich people to finance a stupid bill. Never saw that coming, man will these people never stop trying new things? And by the way, where does it say everyone has the RIGHT to government health insurance? Where?

Thank you Joker and Conserv. We have all got to pull together. We can't allow Obama and his thugs to destroy what's good about health care. Yes, I agree with fixing it. We should not have to be taxed to foot someone's abortion or illegals. I don't think abortion is a medical emergency. Take care of the ones that don't have insurance without messing with ours.